U.S. ARMY AWARDS $6.7 BILLION JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE CONTRACT TO OSHKOSH CORPORATION
So, $6,700,000,000 contract dollars, divided by 17,000 vehicles, makes the cost $394,117.65 per vehicle. I expect these to be expensive, but should they be that expensive? No really, I'm asking.
ISIS seems to be doing just fine with Toyota trucks.
In reply to spitfirebill:
You make a good point, though they also are occasionally forced to use old Fords that used to belong to plumbers.
A billion here, a billion there.
Pretty soon you are talking about real money.
Actually seems similar to early prototype/development cars. I remember one test minivan was worth approximately $450,000. Most others were only around $200,000.
That thing looks like the real deal. I wonder if it can climb like the HMMV could?
I heard This company won the bid because they could get the vehicle to a price of 250k/per over The whole 120,000 program.
My company will supply the HVAC systems for these vehicles. Its a huge contract for us, and very profitable as well. 
My dad works for the corporate side (Pierce Fire Trucks actually). He said they will pick up an additional 300 or so workers for 5 years. Nice for our local economy.
I have crawled on a few pieces of Oshkosh vehicles and they are some sturdy built pieces of equipment.
If they're built to take explosions better than current transports, I say it's worth it.
They're basically a baby MRAP truck, and priced to match. The other MRAPs seem to go for $500,000 to $1,000,000 each. They aren't quite a "similar specs to the HMMWV, but more modern" sort of replacement as much as a "We've been using HMMWVs where we really should be using a small armored personnel carrier - let's get something that actually fits what we're doing" project.
One of the issues with costs is the specs some of this stuff has. A great example is the laptop mount in the HMMWV. It can hold the entire vehicle.
Understand that. The laptop mount can hold up the entire vehicle. (This is from the company that builds them. My former company was showing there as well and I got to walk around and questions.)
I am not a mil spec designer but that seems to be a safety factor beyond what is ever required. Then you do +++ on cost and profit and you get a $1,000,000 truck.
It doesn't surprise me. If you look at about anything the military sources it farms the pieces out across as many congressional districts as governmentally possible so each politico can point to their piece of the hog trough (defense dollars) and get re-elected.
wash-rinse-repeat
Oh man, if any of you have been involved in designing low volume/very niche small-medium scale systems (and there are some posting who know this), this price is completely reasonable.
The only reason it is as cheap as it is is because the astronomical cost to engineer such a beast is spread out 120,000 times.
HiTempguy wrote: Oh man, if any of you have been involved in designing low volume/very niche small-medium scale systems (and there are some posting who know this), this price is completely reasonable.
Agreed. As far as comparing it to the Toyota trucks used by the other guys, I know which one I'd rather run over an IED in.
Many years ago Andy Rooney did a piece on 60 Minutes about the cost of the M-1 Abrams tank, which was built by Chrysler. He compared the cost of the M-1 to the Chrysler Cordoba, and showed how many Cordobas the government could have bought for the price of one tank.
The thought of an Army division attacking the enemy in 10,000 Cordobas (with rich Corinthian Leather upholstery) always made me laugh.
In reply to stuart in mn: I remember that piece!
HiTempguy wrote: Oh man, if any of you have been involved in designing low volume/very niche small-medium scale systems (and there are some posting who know this), this price is completely reasonable. The only reason it is as cheap as it is is because the astronomical cost to engineer such a beast is spread out 120,000 times.
I have...just not mil-spec. DoD is the profit center jackpot. We did government service stuff, for small scale diesel powered equipment packages (read less than 100 some as small as 2) much cheaper, but we were direct.
Not the Tier 3 selling to the Tier 2 selling to the Tier 1 Selling to the primary contractor. Cost +++
bravenrace wrote: My company will supply the HVAC systems for these vehicles. Its a huge contract for us, and very profitable as well.
Not really something to be proud of (if you are).
They could not find someone who would not make it "very profitable" then?
(I do realize some of the absurdities of government contracting. It's a lot of "who can do the paperwork the best" and they don't shy from paying a lot, it makes it look like they are going with the best.)
In reply to aircooled:
That's a pretty stupid statement. We are in business to make a profit. This is a huge contract for our AMERICAN company and we are providing 100% USA made products and engineering. Why wouldn't we be proud of that? Have you recently tried to get a government contract? Its not easy. BTW, we are the leader in our industry and known to make superior products. They ARE going with the best. (If you don't like this post, you should have seen the stuff I deleted.)
Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Home state of Scott Walker.
Interesting.
PHeller wrote: Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Home state of Scott Walker. Interesting.
They've been building trucks in Oshkosh for a lot longer than Scott Walker has been around.
A lot longer. And every time a company gets one of these big money contracts, it's usually contested by the other bidders in court.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to aircooled: That's a pretty stupid statement. We are in business to make a profit. This is a huge contract for our AMERICAN company and we are providing 100% USA made products and engineering. Why wouldn't we be proud of that? Have you recently tried to get a government contract? Its not easy. BTW, we are the leader in our industry and known to make superior products. They ARE going with the best. (If you don't like this post, you should have seen the stuff I deleted.)
Very diplomatic post. Well done.
But I think his grievance was with the "huge" part. Not the profit part. I took his comment as "You are an American company that is fleecing the American Tax Payer through the American Government by making a larger than normal profit." type comment.
Is there any info you can share, like get to 40 degrees interior temp on a 140 degree day in direct sunlight? I can imagine the unit on thing is quiet....large.
In reply to Flight Service:
That's not what I meant at all. I meant it is a huge volume of business for us, and yes profitable. I'm not going to apologize for making money, and the thought that we shouldn't actually is stupid. To get this kind of business, you develop a system using your own resources with no guarantee that it will ever get picked up by the military. Then you submit it with a price quote, wait as long as a year or two to find out if you did your job well enough that they pick your product to use. I once spent a month at the MIT labs helping develop and air conditioning system to cool the electronics in a container that was mounted on a HUMVEE. It had to have redundant systems and controls, and had to have the ability to be controlled on site, remotely, or by satellite. It also had to have very complex datalogging and self troubleshooting capability. My company developed the entire product, I went there and helped them integrate it into the truck, and we never got the business. This is what it's like with the military. So people can make fun of it or tell me we're making too much on it, but the reality is that it costs a ton of money to develop these systems and once in a long while it pays off. Our profit margin for the military is no greater than it is for any of our other customers. That's why his statement was stupid, because it was completely uninformed, and diplomacy really isn't my thing.
You'll need to log in to post.
